For some time I have avoided reading Maureen Dowd’s columns. Indeed, it occurs to me that the last time I found them amusing was when Bill Clinton was still in office and her style was appropriate for the moment. Of course, if Wikipedia is to be believed that would be roughly when she started as a columnist, and therefore her particular voice was fresh at the time.
But when I saw this headline on DougJ’s New York Times Pitchbot feed (which I recommend), The Dems Are Delighted. But a Coup Is Still a Coup*, I was weak and allowed myself to give it a read.
We head to Chicago on a wave of euphoria, exuberance, exultation, excitement and even, you might say, ecstasy.
It’s going to be a glorious coronation — except that everyone’s mad at one another.
Top Democrats are bristling with resentments even as they are about to try to put on a united front at the United Center in the Windy City.
I first read this on Sunday, but only now have the chance to write this. It sounded absurd when I read it–as if she had written this column in the 5 minutes between Biden pulling out and before he endorsed Harris and then it was sealed in a mayonnaise jar buried in the backyard to be taken out and published the week of the convention because Dowd was going already be on vacation.
While I am sure that there are some Democrats upset about the switch, the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary. Certainly, I have seen no evidence of “bristling” Top Democrats and certainly none that “everyone’s mad at one another.” Is this a missive from Earth-2?
And all of the above reads as even more absurd after the glimpses I caught of day one of the DNC, which kind of shouted “unity” at anyone who was listening.
A coterie of powerful Democrats maneuvered behind the scenes to push an incumbent president out of the race.
I dunno. It seems fairly out in the open as I recall.
And here is where we get to the need for the dictionary (emphases mine).
Even though it was the right thing to do, because Joe Biden was not going to be able to campaign, much less serve as president for another four years, in a fully vital way, it was a jaw-dropping putsch.
[…]
Party leaders whitewashed the coup by ornately extolling Biden.
[…]
One of the most ruthless and successful tacticians in congressional history seemed sheepish about knifing her pal, and conflicted over whether to take credit. Et tu, Nancy? Biden must have thought.
[…]
Bidenworld’s feelings about the Jacquerie heard round the world.
So, a coup (or putsch in German) is an extralegal removal toppling of a government. The literary reference to Julius Ceasar was about a betrayal and successful assassination, and the Jacquerie was a peasant rebellion.
While all of this fits into Dowd’s snarky, often overwrought, intellectualized prose, it is also all rather imprecise.
So, in order, a coup is an extralegal overthrow of power. There was no coup against Biden. For one thing, being the presumptive nominee of your party is not an official office of government. And no one marched him in his pajamas to a plane that flew him to Costa Rica (as happened to Honduran President Mel Zelaya in 2009). No one bombed the White House leading to his suicide (as happened to Chile’s Salvador Allende in 1973). Heck, no one stormed the Capitol to try and stop the Electoral Vote count (I think you all are familiar with that one–which I still consider more an insurrection than a coup attempt, but you get the point).
No, there were meetings, some poll and fundraising numbers were provided, and some public pressure was applied.
And the person making that decision was Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. The power was his. Maybe we could talk about a metaphorical coup if Democratic “Mandarins” (to use one of Dowd’s terms) had plotted in secret to cause a floor fight that was sprung in the moment. But this was all above board and, I have to stress, within the rules of the game. It was decidedly not a “coup.”
Do I think that Biden felt betrayed by some of his allies? Probably.
Did it feel like a rebellion? I am sure it did to him.
But, I must stress, that this was a political calculation of a political party trying to win an election in terms of what candidate they wanted to field. This is not a nefarious attempt to put a body double in the Oral Office or to have the Vice President certify fake electors.
This was about candidate selection.
Further, I cannot stress enough that Biden had to choose to go. And unless that was some kind of blackmail involved that we are unaware of, that choice was his to make.
I would note that the sole bit of evidence for the column for all this talk of coups, betrayals, and rebellions (at least that she shared) was this:
“I think it was unfortunate because I think that the president had won the nomination fair and square,” Klain said. “Fourteen million people had voted for him and the vice president as vice president.” He added: “I do think, you know, the president was pushed by public calls from elected officials for him to drop out, from donors calling for him to drop out. And I think that was wrong.”
So, is anyone surprised that some members of Biden’s team would be disappointed in this turn of events? (Note to Dowd, while “putsch” and “pushed” sound the same, they are not synonyms).
I would also note that after all the overwrought language and allusions she ends up here:
Those who pushed out Biden should be proud. They saved him and their party from a likely crushing defeat, letting Trump snake back in and soil democracy.
So if she feels this way, I am not sure (except for the clicks and pressure to get a column out) what the point of the piece is supposed to be. One guesses that Dowd sees Trump as a threat, so it is kind of odd to me for her to feed one of Trump’s narratives on the eve of the DNC. Perhaps she just wants to feel relevant and edgy?
And if there is any doubt that TrumpWorld didn’t notice, I saw this headline at Fox News on Sunday: ‘Powerful Democrats’ pushed President Biden out in ‘coup’.
To be clear: I don’t expect Dowd to support Harris over Trump. My point is that I suspect that she does and so writing propaganda (I see a lot of speculation and not much reporting in the column) that helps Trump’s position is a weird flex in my view. Plus, long-time readers know how much I love it when terms of political analysis are misused and abused. Whatever you want to call what happened to Biden, a “coup” ain’t it.
To be boring and clear let me point out that the process to nominate a presidential candidate has many steps. Biden had completed the primary process but was not yet the nominee. By stepping aside voluntarily and releasing the delegates he was operating within the rules. There was nothing illegal nor extralegal about it. Unless he did all this under threat of violence or some other coercive force (e.g., blackmail) then this wasn’t a coup by any stretch of the imagination.
Further, if one believes that a Trump presidency is a threat to American democracy (which, as I recall, the NYT editorial board does–you know, the ones who told Biden he needed to step down after the debate) then maybe choices about which wild arguments one wants to publish are in order. To be clear, I don’t think Dowd’s piece is going to change votes, but I still find it factually wrong, poorly argued, and simply an odd thing to write at this juncture.
*I would note that the online version of the piece notes that the print title of the piece was “After Biden Bloodletting, Time for Fun!”
